Change Your Image
kevinm-4
Reviews
Radio (2003)
You can have a heart.
Bouys my heart to watch a movie that spotlights compassion and understanding. Gives hope to the human race for knowing self fulfilling and greed are not paramount.
La enfermedad del domingo (2018)
Great photography
Slow, dark, simple plot. Good acting. Would not recommend even to someone I did not like.
Wouldn't want anyone to believe that I liked it. My wife liked it,me,I thought it plodded.
Outside In (2017)
Dumb meets stupid
You can not unscrew a life that has gotten completely out of control.
Edie Falco , nor anyone in this abomination of errors
Is redeemable.
Blue Jasmine (2013)
Great cast.
Cate did a wonderful job. A true actress.
It is easy to see why she was nominated.
The Titan (2018)
Really!!!
Could have been good. 20 minutes in, it went for the unbelievable,and the trite
The Matrix Revolutions (2003)
Wow!
I think it's appropriate that the third and final Matrix installment has occurred under the current Bush administration, because both the current political state and the entire Matrix concept is about freedoms from oppression. Had this movie been made pre-2000, most people would have felt the movie was made about the Clinton years, where Big Brother told you what to do and not what to do, what you could have and couldn't have - sounds a lot like the robot mechanisms fighting humanity, eh? I turned to my friend and told him this and he nodded thoughtfully. It's amazing just how brutal a socialistic liberal society can be - thank goodness we only get to see the outcome of such a world on celluloid, and thankfully don't have to worry about it now - at least not until the pendumlum, unfortunately, swings back to the left.
8-of-10
Conan the Barbarian (1982)
One of the best fantasy movies around...
I've been a huge Conan fan for years, collecting hundreds of copies of the famous "Savage Sword" series. I was 13 when I saw this film with my father, after begging him for months to take me to see it. It was my first "R" rated movie and I left the theater to play video games during the sex part, (chuckle). Regardless, I've always held a deep love for this movie.
It's a simple tale, true, of revenge, but the brutality of the movie (spurting limbs, fountains of blood) is what the comics and books were always about - it's a very violent world filled with very violent people and I was happy to see that the violence wasn't watered down in the movie - otherwise it would not have been true to Howard's original vision.
"Arnie" plays an absolute perfect Conan. If ever a man was born to play a character, our favorite Austrian was born to play the barbarian from Cimmeria.
And I've seen this movie mentioned as a "historical" and not as a "fantasy" - at least not in the sense as "Willow" or even the "Lord of the Rings" series.
Why?
There is no magic, in the sense of fireballs doing 42 hit points of damage, but there is a man who turns into a snake, a witch who turns first into a snarling creature and then into a fireball. There is also a giant man-eating snake and talking dead. If all of this doesn't make a movie "fantasy," then what does?
Wonderful movie. Absolutely stunning musical score. It should be placed on a special pedestal next to "Krull" and the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy as hallmarks of the movie fantasy genre.
9-of-10.
House of 1000 Corpses (2003)
Good debut, tired story
I think Rob Zombie can be commended on his directorial debut. I found nothing wrong with his style - a very nice style, really. Over-the-top, true, but hey, it's the horror genre! What else can be expected? I also liked Zombie's infusion of comedy, which has always been a willing bed partner in horror movies, since - when it's done correctly - makes the horror just that much more... well, horrific.
What I didn't like was the story. I mean, I sat there and I kept thinking - "I've seen this before - when will the new twist occur?" And it never really did, unfortunately. From the whacked out middle-of-America "off the beaten path" cannibal family to the idiotic law enforcement officials who left all academy training at the doorstep, the movie never really broke new ground except to show more teens dying in more bloody and terrible fashion.
The story was simple. Teens with a lust for all things bloody and Satanic are lured to a house, where they are captured and tortured and killed by a sadistic family - except for a girl (it's always a girl). She cheats death, only to get recaptured again in the end (which I assume was supposed to be a surprise) and killed. The end.
It's bad enough that the villian (or in this case, villains) are unbelievable and way over the top, but much of the story's mood is shattered when the victims act in equally unbelievable ways. Perhaps that's why the Evil Dead movies (at least the first one) worked so well, because the victims acted - for the most part - like you and I would do in a similar situation. But here, the victims don't seem overally shocked at this whacked-out family, and none try to escape except for the girl, who runs right to a nearby street and hops into the first car she sees - driven by the same man who, just the night before, gave her and her friends the map to the very place and very people who had been trying to kill her.
No. And the police officers would *not* have acted as they had, either - but then again, you aren't supposed to take movies like this seriously. My point is that - if the director *had* taken the subject matter a bit more seriously - it would have been a much better movie.
Alas, this theme has been done much better by others: specifically Tobe Hooper's original (and horrific) "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and one of my favorite X-Files episode (can't remember the name - the one that was at first banned from airing on Fix Newtork) with the cannibal and incestious family living just off the highway in a cornfield who stalk innocent passerbyers.
Rent it, but realize this movie could have been better had the characters been given a realistic chance in the story to act more believable.
Krull (1983)
Great fantasy classic
I've always loved this movie. And with the success of the "Lord of the Ring" trilogy, perhaps some of these fantasy classics - Krull, Conan the Barbarian, Sword and the Sorcerer, Willow and Excalibur - will again be discovered and recognized for their places in fantasy movie history.
With great battles, nice swordplay, a centaur, a giant spider (what is it with fantasy movies and spiders, from this one with a "musical" web to big bad Shelob?), and yes, the ever important glaive.
The premise of the movie is unique - an alien invasion from space of a fantasy world and a heir to power must first find his courage and then the weapons to defeat the evil.
One of my favorite scenes from the entire movie is when the heroes capture and take flight in the air with thunder horses, who can run so fast they cause flames to spew from their feet and can take to the air. I know, it sounds cheesy - words can't justify it without seeing it with your own eyes. Suffice to say, it's a beautiful moment, especially with an outstanding score sweeping you along with the flying steeds - much in the same vein as the riders of Rohan thundering down the hill to meet the black army at Helm's Deep at the end of "Two Towers. Both are truly moving, emotional scenes.
I've looked for years to find the soundtrack to this movie and, sadly, haven't been able to find it.
This is one of the best fantasy movies made. Definintely worth a look.
8-of-10
28 Days Later... (2002)
A very good movie
I love zombies. Much more so than vamps or werewolves or possessed children vomiting pee soup. There's something so simple - and yet so methodically terrifying - about zombies and their single-minded feeding goals.
Like "Sixth Sense" was to ghost movies and "The Ring" was to splatter films, I think this movie is morphing zombie flicks, and in a very good way.
The plot is pretty simple affair (how complicated can a zombie move get?). The opening gives me more reasons to hate "greenies" and their naive ways. The protagonist shuffling through the streets of London in hospital digs and a bag of coke cans is just... eerie. Very well done. And the movie does a good job of showing the brutality of the "undead" - and later showing equal "brutality" with the "living" - primarily the rape and a rather gruesome "live on live" death where the protagnoist kills the rapist with thumbs in the eye sockets. The man's death scream is very authentic, and will send chills and bumps up and down your spine and flesh.
Worth the price of admission or a rental, and the fact that its set in London adds to the movie's wonderful feel.
8.5 of 10.
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
Terrible piece of cinema
Where have the staples of a good movie - a plot, characterization, or a shadow of written conversation - gone too?
Why is it that a movie is a movie based solely on pretty a person flips through the air? A sword gleams as it slices in the dark? How far a spray of blood gushes from a severed stump?
So-called "critics" panned a movie like "Secondhand Lions" and stumbled over numerous accolades for this piece of oozing filth. How can so many critics be so universally wrong?
Terrible piece of drudge. Don't waste your money.
Hulk (2003)
Me like...
Me Hulk like movie. Me Hulk happy... Hulk eats lots p'corn and Coke. Me Hulk thinks movie good. Me Hulk look very pretty on big screen. Hulk likes story. No Hollywood stuff to make Hulk mad. Me Hulk had good time. Me Hulk probably see Hulk movie again. Me Hulk thinks others see Hulk also. If no, Hulk pull legs off. Hulk only angry once - first of film. Me Hulk got sleepy. Hulk no like it when sleepy. Hulk made other non-Hulks in movie place loud. Hulk no like word "Shhhhhhhh." But me Hulk calm down. Me Hulk like.
Now Me Hulk wait for next Hulk movie. Hulk hope good. Hulk no like bad movie. Why Hulk looking for non-Hulk Lucas. Rip arms off. Make good Star Wars movie.
Hulk need more popcorn.
Identity (2003)
Very good movie...
I really liked this movie. I actually read the reviews about this movie before I went to see the movie, so I knew what I was getting into. Since the tickets were a $1.50 a pop, I wasn't gonna shed many tears had the film turned out to be as bad as the critics on this board have labeled it. To me, this film was a case of "damned if you do and damned if you don't." Don't know what I mean? Well... several folks in their reviews above have pompously stated that the first hour of the film was great and the last hour, unfortunately, wasn't so great. Well, if that was the case, then the first half of the movie was shaping up to be yet another movie based on the premise of a shadowy Jason Vorhees stalking unsuspecting victims with a... how original... a knife. Don't get me wrong, the first half of this movie - based on this premise - was done extremely well. To me, it was the latter half of the film that saved it - made the movie so innovative, in a genre that is desperately lacking originality these days. However, had the movie turned out to be nothing more than a sophisticated slasher film, than no doubt these same "critics" would have howled and whined and moaned about how "unoriginal" this film was, how it was retreading where other movies have walked before it. So, in the end, "Identity" can't really win. By changing or "pulling out the rug" to stay original, the movie is blasted. Yet, had it stayed true to its roots shown in the first hour of the film, it would have been labeled as a "tiresome retread" or "unoriginal."
So in the end, don't listen to this "would-be, wanna-be critics." This is a great film with a neat twist. It's not about a lunatic on the loose with a knife. It's not about (gag!) vengeful Native American spirits or aliens from the Pleades. It's a great movie with great twists and great character development that won't leave you disappointed.
My only criticism is the last 2 minutes of the film. The movie would have been perfect had it ended with the "triumphant personality" driving off to Florida and enjoying those acres of oranges. Somewhere in the "Hollywood rulebook" it states that a horror movie *must* have a shocking, evil ending. Why? It WOULD be innovative to have a movie of this type ending happily, with good triumphing over evil. You know, it's been so long ago since a horror movie ended happily that such an ending now would again seem refreshing and... wow!... shocking.
Other than the appearance of the missing child in the end, a great movie. 9/10.
Gods and Generals (2003)
Terrible movie
I am one of those patient souls who - while watching a movie - will display huge amounts of tolerance when viewing a movie. I will let slip certain weak dialogue or FX... afterall, I made it through the last two Star Wars movies without permanent scars. But this movie - oh my. It reminded me, in a way, of "Pearl Harbor." A love story with a the Pearl Harbor attack used as a backdrop. The same can be said here - a saga of Stonewall Jackson and 22 (I counted 'em) political speeches of one fashion or another throughout. In fact, the wife and I giggled each time we heard the first fleeting notes of a flute or piano, because we then knew a speech was about to begin. I kept waiting for the battles... and waiting. And waiting. And waiting. Many people left the theater after the intermission. And two guys behind us were snoring. Yeah, it was that bad. Battlefield Earth bad. And except for a few exceptions, the battles were - boring? After a while, you get tired of guys spinning away with a scream on cue as the camera rolls by them - time and time again we see this. Without blood. I'm not a guy who feeds on FX blood. But the bar has been raised quite a bit with war movies, and the realistic approach is about the best way to portray the real horrors of war. So compared to "Saving Private Ryan" or "We were Soldiers," the battles looked like tea parties. Which is a shame, because we've seen the "realistic" treatment of warfare with modern warfare (Black Hawk Down), World War 2 (Ryan), Vietnam (Platoon, We were Soldiers) and the Revolutionary War (Patriot) - but nothing that shows the horror and nastiness of war during the Civil War. Regardless, you can tell there are way too many Civil War reinactors, because they "act" like they are waging war - trotting along, not ducking as bullets hiss by, slow-motion hand-to-hand battle, unrealistic deaths (throwing hands into the air, pausing dramatically, then slowly - artfully - falling to the ground). The dialogue is terrible, and I was shocked and disappointed to see the same directing team back for this one that was there for "Gettysburg," which is so much of a better film simply because it can focus on the battle itself. Make the battle paramount, and the other "side" stories second. Unfortunately, the roles were reversed in "Gods and Generals," and the only reason I can think of is because this covers years... not 5 days like "Gettysburg" did.
The few pluses is - with the exception of Robert E. Lee - all the talking heads from "Gettysburg" are back. And yes, all those fake beards are back, too. I still howl when I see Jeb Stuart's thick growth covering his lower face. Perhaps they should have found a "larger faced" actor. Oh well...
The battle of Fredicksburg was neat in the fact that it showed - for the first time of any Civil War movie - urban warfare. I really wished they could have shown more of it. It was interesting to see the Union soldiers storm the opposite bank, break into town, and suffer terrible casualties as they work street to street, taking out gun nests and snipers in windows and second-floor porches. Very nice, and very well choreographed. But once the Union breaks out of the town and into the fields, it's more of the same - long sweeping shots of men firing guns, with the occasional gunner throwing back his head with a scream from an unseen bullet - time and time and time again. I guess they think the huge amounts of smoke from the muskets and cannon shell will obscure bad "warfare" acting or the lack of blood and mangled limbs, but it doesn't. Later, during the battle of Chancelersville (sic), the direction teams scores more kudos points as they show very effectively the Confederates charge in mass in silent mode - or what I call 'ghost recon' mode - running out from the forest, taking the Yanks completed by surprise, and folding up their flank. Very nicely done, and you are momentarily swept away as the one-sided battle unfolds, and the Union soldiers flee in terror. It's also the only time in the entire movie that I took notice of the musical score. More than 3 hours into the film, that's just not right.
Overall, I was extremely disappointed. Expected a lot "less" love stories and epic speeches and much more gritty battles, the type so many of us fell in love with with Gettysburg.
I was fidgeting and praying for the movie to end long before the closing credits appeared. I wanted to get up and walk out so bad my guts hurt, but I was going to get the most out of my $7, by God! I can't imagine how *more* boring the promised 6-hour DVD will be. Let's hope tons of footage was chopped from the battles. Otherwise - puke. Perhaps they'll find on the cutting room floor the battle of Antietam.
Oh well. Wait for a DVD rental at Blockbuster, unless you are a die-hard Civil War buff.
Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
Beam me away, Scotty
This series was doomed when the torch was passed from the "old" Trekkies to the "Next generation" Trekkies, but that torch was bobbled and dropped from aging hands. This series is dead. It has become a mockery in the science-fiction community and let's all hope it ends now. I wish I could say I have something redeeming to say about it but I can't bring myself to do it. The Star Trek franchise began on the small screen and has seen most of its success there. And it's on the television where any future Star Trek endeavour should stay.
Ugh... wait to rent this dog on video, and hope you have a $1-off coupon in hand when you do it.
Khan, where are thou?
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Wow!
Amazing. Simply amazing. This was better than I thought it would be. Others have described this movie better than I can so I won't bore you with repeated verbage. Know this: when the credits roll at the end of the film, you'll look at your watch and think, "THAT was three hours!"
I thought I would never live to see the day that a fantasy movie was made "right." After squirming through sludge that was the "Dungeons and Dragons" movie and "Willow," or seeing a fantasy like "Conan the Barbarian" turned into a more historical feature, it's so refreshing to see mainstream fantasy - which dominates roleplaying, computer games and books - finally crack the silver screen wide open. Many people have compared 'Lord of the Rings' an d its impact with audiences to that of Star Wars back in the late '70s, and I tend to agree. Star Wars was something new to many people, and introduced science fiction in a new way to new generations of people or folks who otherwise would have never cracked open a Harlan Ellison or Arthur C. Clarke novel.
I hope "Lord of the Rings" opens up this new genre to other "realistic" attempts, and buries forver the dragon dung that is "Willow" or "Dungeons and Dragons" or "Legend." I hope to see the "Dragonlance" Saga brought to the Silver Screen, or perhaps Brooks' "Shanara" series or even George RR Martin's new fantasy series. At least this lays down the foundation for future works and shows that, yes, it can be done.
At the very least I hope Peter Jackson embarks on "The Hobbit" when it's all said and done. Imagine the pure movie bliss of watching the Hobbit and then the LOTR - all in wonderful, extended, uncut versions - one right after the other on DVD. Ahhhh...
And one final remark. I shake my head at what I call the "Tolken geeks" who are screaming at the "diversions" Peter Jackson has made in his translation of the book to movie. Remember that it's extremely difficult to translate one medium to another. In fact it's downright impossible. Had Jackson filmed every single page of Tolkien's epic in order, you would see mush up on the screen; it simply would not and could not make sense. Let's face it, if movies concerning World War II were made "authentically," hours and hours and hours of it would be troops marching, eating and sleeping without any hint of action. Who would want to see that? Jackson has remained true to the ethos of the Tolkien story and spirit, and that's key here. Not that he left out Tom Bombadork or had Legolas brush back his hair at the beginning of "Two Towers" instead of having him rub at his eye and THEN brush back his hair. (eye-roll)
Sometimes I want to walk up to one of the many "Tolkien geeks" on this board and ask them how they would feel if "normal" Hollywood had gotten their hands on this project? When Jackson first took TLOR to Miramax, they asked to make *two* movies. Egads! What if Jackson had shrugged and said, "okey dokey!" A lot of other directors/producers would have done that. Or what if typical Hollywood production company insisted on a *single* two-and-a-half hour story to tell the entire trilogy?
I recommend to every "Tolkien geek" who has already flamed this film on this board or are preparing to to think about what I said above, and to add Peter Jackson to your prayers tonight, thanking him for staying as true to Tolkien's word as humanly - and artisitcally - as possible.
This movie is a 10.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Wow!
Amazing. Simply amazing. This was better than I thought it would be. Others have described this movie better than I can so I won't bore you with repeated verbage. Know this: when the credits roll at the end of the film, you'll look at your watch and think, "THAT was three hours!"
I thought I would never live to see the day that a fantasy movie was made "right." After squirming through sludge that was the "Dungeons and Dragons" movie and "Willow," or seeing a fantasy like "Conan the Barbarian" turned into a more historical feature, it's so refreshing to see mainstream fantasy - which dominates roleplaying, computer games and books - finally crack the silver screen wide open. Many people have compared 'Lord of the Rings' an d its impact with audiences to that of Star Wars back in the late '70s, and I tend to agree. Star Wars was something new to many people, and introduced science fiction in a new way to new generations of people or folks who otherwise would have never cracked open a Harlan Ellison or Arthur C. Clarke novel.
I hope "Lord of the Rings" opens up this new genre to other "realistic" attempts, and buries forver the dragon dung that is "Willow" or "Dungeons and Dragons" or "Legend." I hope to see the "Dragonlance" Saga brought to the Silver Screen, or perhaps Brooks' "Shanara" series or even George RR Martin's new fantasy series. At least this lays down the foundation for future works and shows that, yes, it can be done.
At the very least I hope Peter Jackson embarks on "The Hobbit" when it's all said and done. Imagine the pure movie bliss of watching the Hobbit and then the LOTR - all in wonderful, extended, uncut versions - one right after the other on DVD. Ahhhh...
And one final remark. I shake my head at what I call the "Tolken geeks" who are screaming at the "diversions" Peter Jackson has made in his translation of the book to movie. Remember that it's extremely difficult to translate one medium to another. In fact it's downright impossible. Had Jackson filmed every single page of Tolkien's epic in order, you would see mush up on the screen; it simply would not and could not make sense. Let's face it, if movies concerning World War II were made "authentically," hours and hours and hours of it would be troops marching, eating and sleeping without any hint of action. Who would want to see that? Jackson has remained true to the ethos of the Tolkien story and spirit, and that's key here. Not that he left out Tom Bombadork or had Legolas brush back his hair at the beginning of "Two Towers" instead of having him rub at his eye and THEN brush back his hair. (eye-roll)
Sometimes I want to walk up to one of the many "Tolkien geeks" on this board and ask them how they would feel if "normal" Hollywood had gotten their hands on this project? When Jackson first took TLOR to Miramax, they asked to make *two* movies. Egads! What if Jackson had shrugged and said, "okey dokey!" A lot of other directors/producers would have done that. Or what if typical Hollywood production company insisted on a *single* two-and-a-half hour story to tell the entire trilogy?
I recommend to every "Tolkien geek" who has already flamed this film on this board or are preparing to to think about what I said above, and to add Peter Jackson to your prayers tonight, thanking him for staying as true to Tolkien's word as humanly - and artisitcally - as possible.
This movie is a 10.
Signs (2002)
Best movie of the year
The new century's Spielberg -- Shymalan -- does it again with "Signs." Make no mistake about it, it's one of the best movies of the year. I won't go into any details about the movie except for this: The movie is a movie about Armageddon, about demons assaulting humans due to a lack of worldwide spirtuality that currently dooms our society. These "demons" - posing as alien invaders - do their best in a midnight assault to take as many humans as they can with them, but a rediscovery of our faith in God (including the weapon that defeats the aliens that comes out of the Middle East, which so happens to be the birthplace of Christ himself) overcomes this assualt on humanity, with love for family and a faith in religion winning through in the end. Our society today - which mocks God at every turn - should think twice about the consequences of a Godless society; the total breakdown of morals and values that would come about in such a society.
Signs continues to displays M. Night's expanding skills as a director/writer, and I can't wait to see his next film.
9/10.
K-19: The Widowmaker (2002)
K-19: The History Re-maker...
I don't fault much in this movie. The acting was nice; the special effects were nice; the men turned cripsy critters were... well, you know, pretty "realistically" disqusting. Wrap up all that and you have a nice summer movie. I liked the fact that the movie's viewpoint was from those living behind the Iron Curtain, where the Americans were viewed as evil. I got a kick out of that. You also got to see Soviet males fear Americans as much as American males feared the Soviets during a very hectic time filled with tension. I particularly liked the authentic goings-on with Russian command, how the Russians would rather die than give up their boat or lose their reputations. I had a problem, however, with the movie's ending. Particular a very un-Russian sentimentality. I've studied Russians over the years; especially their conduct fighting the Germans on the Eastern Front during World War II. This is a race where hardships were endured and almost embraced. Afterall, this is a country who had Russian villages charged German defenses to "use up most of the Nazi bullets" before the soldiers were sent into the lead storm. This is the country who launches their cosmonauts onto tin-can space stations and keep them up there for a year, risking major psychie damages.
In the movie, the Russians cared about their men. In reality - in a Communist society - individuals don't mean anything when compared to the masses.
The Russians have lost countless subs over the decades, K-19 would have proved no differently. The ending where the seven men who died from radiation was something you would see from Americans, or western Europeans, and NOT from hardened Russian men brought up in a Communist state where there is no such thing as an "individual."
Because of this "American-like" unauthentic sympathy by the surviving boat members for their fallen members, I give this movie a '4'.
Bogus.
Reign of Fire (2002)
Very good flick - well worth admission
Sometimes you walk into a theatre not knowing much about the movie you're about to see except for the barest of bones of a plot. Sometimes you walk out wishing you could have your three hours back. Othertimes, you walk out thinking the experience was *much* better than you'd hoped.
That's how I felt after seeing "Reign of Fire." It's a rare occurance; "Matrix" and the original "Die Hard" were two movies I walked into thinking they would be "so-so" and they turned out to greatly surprise me. That's a wonderful experience, if you ask me. A tremendous feeling of satisfaction, like you earned the money you spent.
You probably know by now the plot of this movie. It's a visualization of numerous science-fiction novels from past decades, where the modern world is thrown kicking and screaming back into the Dark Ages. In this instance, it's a large male dragon unleashed by unsuspecting British construction workers. The dragons breed like locusts, so fast that most of us can't comprehend the extent of the numbers until it's too late.
The movie is set in England, another plus. Too many times these movies are spent in America and I think it's nice to transport the movies to other world locales. Britain is the perfect setting because humans, once again, find themselves holed up in castle fortresses, about the only thing that are keeping the dragon hordes at bay. Inside the castle is a refreshing mix of modern technology and 16th Century living, where modern-day gadgets rub shoulders with tales of fantasy, fairy-tale and the supernatural. This is one of the few movies that captures what is can normally be told in the pages of a books, and it's this blending of ages - and an almost intoxicating gritty, dirty atmosphere that blankets this movie from start to end - that makes "Reign of Fire" work so well.
The British are a tough people. They always have been. Probably always will be. And inside their castles that dot the Isle, the scattered remains of the once great British Empire are found struggling and making ends meet even as dragons buzz bomb them from the skies, much like the Nazis did to London and surrounding countryside during the early days of World War II.
Down the road in a cloud of dust comes the Americans, making one Britian quip, "The one thing worst than a dragon are Americans." Well, as an American, I didn't mind seeing the Americans in this movie portrayed as warriors pure and pure. After all, it seems to be America's legacy to bail Europe and its people time and time again out of trouble, and we don't fail this legacy in this movie. What should keep the Europeans from screaming "Americanism" at the top of their lungs, however, is that this movie is essentially about Europeans - Britians in general - and how a Britain (SPOILER ALERT) eventually is the one that brings down the baddie. But like in World War 1, World War II, etc, etc, etc, the British people would not have been able to survive without the aid of their longtime upstart colonists, the good 'ol U.S of A.
There are some good action sequences throughout the movie, as well as some good shocking moments with the dragons, particularly in the tomato field and when the male dragon was prepping for his attack on the American armored column. Great stuff. The sky-driving dragon bait part, however unrealistic, was at the very least entertaining. Although I think we could have come up with a better way to lure the dragons to the guns... (shrug)
In a movie of this type, I kept expecting your typical 'Hollywood' cliches to pop up throughout the movie - but they never occurred. There were no cheesy "one-liners" or no smiles and puns spoken during the heat of battle. The music, directing, and screenplay were all top-notch. And again, I loved it seeing a man in an American M-1 battle tank with a crossbow in his hands and battle axe slung over his shoulder. Those shots alone would make a great movie poster for the wall.
And who can fault dragons? Not since the days of "Dragonslayer" have seen dragons take to the sky and spit forth fire down on the heads of humans hunting them. This is no CGI "Godzilla" or mind-controlled dragons from the dredge that was "Dungeons and Dragons." These dragons are smart, stalk their play and, like cats with mice, even stalk and "play" with their human prey. Rejoice!
Although the subject matter was fantastical, the movie never did step into that area. For that - and for the great, midievil atmosphere and to see a helicopter taking on a flying dragon, I give this movie 8.2 of 10.
Go see it. It's better than a rental from Blockbuster.
The Sum of All Fears (2002)
Very good...
Contains Spoilers! This was a very good movie. The series was dead in the water with Harrison Ford as Clancy's "Jack Ryan." God bless him, but Ford was getting way too old to play the 30-something Ryan. Now, if Alec Baldwin had kept the role he did such a good job with in "Hunt/Red October" -- instead of giving it up only to watch his career sink like a stricken sub -- I wouldn't be typing this first paragraph right now. So something had to be done to get this franchise back into high gear. With Ford's blessing, Ben Affleck was the choice.
Ben is no Harrison Ford, but few people are. It was like when Tino Martinez took over for Don Mattingly at first-base with the Yankees, it takes time for the adjustment to click in. Ben should do an OK job with the franchise, as well as anyone else could have, at least.
Ben plays naive characters well, and he portrays a very young Jack Ryan - early in his CIA career - the same way, naive and "eyes-wide-open." He also displays the Jack Ryan stubbornness that fans of the books know all about. This "naivety" will have to change though, in future movies, as Jack Ryan marches on to, eventually, the U.S. Presidency. Is Ben up to the task? Only time will tell...
The movie starts out when an Israeli nuke and the airplane carrying it is downed by Syrian AAA. The nuke, damaged in the crash, is buried by dust and sand. (The nuke is not a conventional bomb in that, when it hits the ground, it explodes. It must be triggered by the pilot or others to start the chain reaction for explosion). It is found years later by Syrian farmers, sold on the black market, and serves as the key factor of a group of Fascist Neo-Nazi men who want to use it to force the U.S. and Russia to go at each other's throats - conventional, nucelar or otherwise. It isn't explained all that well, but this Neo-Nazi group is apparently comprised of top officials from a handful of prominent European countries, including Russia itself. With Capitalism and Communism (or former Communism/Socialism) going at each other's throats, Fascism can step into the void and do what Adolf Hitler failed to do back in the 1940s.
Three Russian nuclear scientists are "bought" by this terrorist faction to rebuild the dormant Israeli nuke. You see, during this time, America is inspecting Russia to ensure that no Russian bombs (lying around after the breakup of the Soviet Empire) are sold to terrorist states like Sudan or Iran. In fact, it is said that the U.S. pays these Russian scientists millions each year so they will stay "loyal" and won't help build nukes for Iraq or North Korea.
Jack Ryan discovers that three Russian scientists are missing (each with an expertise that, when pooled, could collectively build a nuke) and the plot kicks into high gear. From here, Jack Ryan and a much younger Mr. Clark (Yeah!!!) work against time to track down the men and the bomb. But they're are much too late. A portion of Baltimore is wiped clean from the face of the Earth by the exploding Isreali nuke, which was moved from the Middle East by this Neo-Nazi "super group" to an American football arena undetected.
I was under the impression that *that* would be the movie's climax, that Jack Ryan would spend the entire movie hunting down and, at the end, stopping the bomb before it blew up. I waved away the nuke sequence in the previews as a dream, or simulation of some sorts.
I was very tickled, then, to see that I was wrong. And for me, the rest of the movie following Baltimore's destruction was a bonus, as top officials in both the U.S. and Russia took steps closer to World War III. I especially liked the yelling matches between the President and his advisors on Air Force One. Some critics on here have said it was unrealistic. That isn't the point. The movie opens with the President and these same Presidential advisors calmly counting down toward a nuclear launch with Russia. It was a drill, you see. But it was important to note how calm everyone was. Compare that to the chaos taking place on Air Force One when all are faced with the "real thing," and you have a better understanding of what is going on. No matter how realistic the "test" at the beginning of the movie may be, it never compares to the real thing. Very well done... The rest of the movie is *very* intense (ala 13 Days) and makes up for a somewhat slow start at the beginning of the movie.
I loved the nuke sequence, very eerie. The film goes black and white, as if the reel itself was exposed to lethal radiation, and there are periods of silence to further impact movie-goers' senses. There are very few, almost scant, shots of the actual destruction itself, which is nice - leave it up to the moviegoer's imagination. But the looming mushroom-cloud is... wow. Very sobering, to say the least. It seems, in a way, to magnify the horror of what just happened. Luckily, we have few CGI tricks like we were bombared with with *other* Hollywood movies this summer (cough cough Star Wars cough cough).
Perhaps before Sept. 11, this movie's main premise - a major U.S. city destroyed by a terrorist-sponsored nuke - would have been planted firmly in the realm of fiction. Remember, Clancy's novel was published in 1991. After Sept. 11, however, the scene seemed all too real, and it explained why the theatre was silent as a tomb during the nuke sequence, as each and every one of us wrestled with the fact that such an idea is most plausible. I haven't seen an audience this silent since "Saving Private Ryan."
Very good acting all around. The death of Morgan Freeman's character (CIA Talbot) was a surprise, a pleasant surprise, considering we're talking about tired, predictable Hollywood here.
Clancy brings a breath of fresh Republican, conservative air to the movie scene, since a tired, wheezing Hollywood is dominated by the liberal far-left wackos. A sane person can only take so much of the far-left spew before it dulls the senses. Kudos to Clancy for swinging the pendulum back to where it belongs!!
And with Mr. Affleck fully entrenched in the movies, we will hopefully see other Clancy thrillers made in the coming years, as Jack Ryan slowly climbs his way up to the U.S. Presidency (Executive Orders) and my favorite Clancy book of all, "The Bear and the Dragon."
A must-see. The movie is as clever as Clancy's excellent novels. The Clancy franchise continues to motor forward. That is a *very* good thing!
Enjoy.
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Please people... get off the high horse.
The only thing that makes me laugh longer than bad movies are people who take summer popcorn movies waaaaaaay too seriously. And reading many of the comments from posters who say they were "bored" or "almost fell asleep" or "was just as bad as Phantom", these poor unfortunate souls walked into the movie theater thinking the screening was going to be a boardroom meeting instead of a form of entertainment. Let me be the first to tell you, this movie is "fun." Pure fun. Isn't that, ultimately, what movies are supposed to be? Fun? Which is what Star Wars is supposed to be. You see, somewhere, in a galaxy far, far away, idiotic fans "Star Trekked" George Lucas' masterpiece, turning Star Wars from a movie into a religion. And in doing so, many "fans" took "Phantom" and now this newest movie way way way too seriously, forgetting the one aspect that made the original triology work so well in the first place - having fun.
Yeah, the dialogue is terrible (and he had a professional writer help him this time - one day he will learn that he's a brilliant producer, an OK director, but he should never pick up the pen ever again). The one-liners reminded me Arnie, and caused me roll my eyes.
But my criticisms ended there. The movie is FUN! It had me laughing. The love story actually, in some small way, touched me. The battle at the end of the movie in the desert was much more sophisticated than that haphazard collection of cut-scenese from Phantom. The acting was very good, and there were many soothing "references" to previous (or future) movies, something that Phantom lacked.
This is a very fun movie, and I will happily see it again. No, it's not Shakespeare. But if you're expecting Star Wars to be Shakepeare, you've got much bigger problems than the Jedi currently face from the Sith Lords.
Go, enjoy, and for God's sakes... HAVE FUN!!
Jurassic Park III (2001)
One of the worst movies in memory
Oh my gosh, where do I begin with this movie, if one can call it that. I've seen a lot of bad movies in my time, but never before did the girlfriend and I *want* to leave a movie; wished it to be over; felt so *embarrassed* for being there, squirming in my seats as our senses were bombarded with the worst acting, special effects, script and, worst of all, movie chiches, seen on the silver screen in along time.
OK, to sum up this movie... Ok, there's this island, right? Near Costa Rica. And it's got dinosaurs on it, right? Lots and lots of 'em. And the movie starts out with two people para-sailing near the island, and they get stranded on the island. Next, the parents of this child lie and scheme the scientist from the original movie to fly with them on the plane as a "honeymoon" present. Again, the only reason the couple is able to prod Dr. Grant onto the plane is the same way he was prodded onto the chopper in the original movie - his excavation sites are facing a big "For Closed" sign and if he takes part in this adventure we'll fund your projects for another 2 years, blah blah, big dino yawn! Well, the plane lands, several people get eaten, the plane takes off, but a dino blast of its super long tail sends the plane crashing. More people get offed. There's a chase via raptors. There's another big fence. More people die and then... the Marines. Yep, the Marines - one of the most idiotic and contrived, "hurried" endings ever to a movie.
And that's about it, folks. Lot's of dinosaurs and lots of people dying. Oh yeah, and Williams' great musical score.
What doomed this movie right off the bat was that it didn't come from a Crighton novelization, as the two previous movies had, so one right there should take this movie with a grain of salt. Other factors that doomed it, of course, was the utter lack of characters in this movie and outrageously stupid dialogue, whispered by all the actors and actresses to keep up the Jurassic Park tradition, of course.
Each movie is "sparked" by a new discovery - in this case they wanted to introduce the new big daddy on the block, one that puts poor old T-Rex to shame. The other, of course, was a silly notion that Raptors could communicate to one another. Boom, with those two plot points in hand, the movie was made.
The dinos in the movie are by far the worst in the series, as more effects are relied on CG and less on animotronics. The rapots in the end sequence where they "talk" to the humans was utterly disgraceful. And another scene, where the tall plant eaters walk over to the boat the protagonists are riding on, swooping down toward the camera, was so much worse than the scenes from the original movie. As Phantom Menace clearly showed, CG graphics a great movie does NOT make.
The movie carried about itself a blanket of confusion. Why were the boy and his dad (step-dad, mom's boyfriend, gay male lover?) were para-sailing in the first place? How did Dr. Grant's sidekick recreate through rubber foam the vocalics of the Raptors? Who was the man in glasses who sat behind Dr. Grant in the airplane and knocked him unconscious when he began to protest the plane landing on the island - and, was he the same man, moments later, who was torn in half by Godzill- er, the finned dinosaur? How can a man decay in just a matter of weeks in the parachute? How can Raptors on an island evolve communication in just 2 years when it took Humans more than a million years to do so? How and why wasn't it explained better how the boy got T-Rex's pee sample? Why did the dinosaur not attack the heroes when they were shoving hands into big piles of manure (wow, how original, yet another scene "borrowed" from the original movie? Why did Godzilla (for lack of a better word) chase the heroe's halfway across the island, following their boat for miles submerged underwater when the thing had the brain capacity of a male tiger? What the hell was going on at the movie's climax when the raptor wanted her eggs back from Dr. Grant. Grant tooted on his buddy's Raptor throat whistle, and the two species exchanged a spirited discussion before the raptors took the eggs and ran off. HUH? And finally, how the hell did some yells through a satellite phone alert Larua Dunn to the fact that her ex-boyfriend Grant was getting attacked by Godzilla on an island half a world away and, on top of that, how the hell did she convince the U.S. government to divert two aircraft carrier groups and two platoons of M-16 totin' Marines to "storm the beaches" to rescue four insignificant people? Ay-yi-yi!!!!
Finally, the movie was basically Aliens. Remember Cameron's great sequel to the original? Little girl lives and survives among the aliens, gets rescued by men and women with guns, most of those men and women get slaugheted, Alien queen backs away from killing due to the human's threatening her eggs? Replace the little girl with a teen-age boy, and Raptor's with acid-veined aliens, and you basically have Jurassic Park 3.
This movie... terrible, terrible, terrible.
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Good summer flick
I liked this film.
I also like reading about history. But I don't have to pay $8 to go to the local library and check out a book on Pearl Harbor and spend the next 2 weeks reading about it. It's for free. But it's also rather boring, too. Most historical books - hell, history itself - is boring.
So I go to see films and see fiction interwoven into the fabric of reality - which of course is what the 2001 "Pearl Harbor" is.
Hey, this movie is Hollywoodized - don't kid yourself. Facts about this raid are "dumbed" down for the overwight, hot-dog eating American audience. But who cares, right? If you want to read or see about what *really* happened in 1941, rent "Tora Tora Tora" in all of its bland, black-and-white boringness.
But if you want to go see a rip-roaring "fun" movie - leave behind your history book and just have fun. Let me repeat myself.
"Just. Have. Fun!"
There is a love story. Something about two guys chasing after the same woman. One of the men goes to Hawaii. The other to Britain to help our cousins stave off those dastardly Nazis. One of the two gets shot down, he's believe to be dead, yadda yadda yadda, something something, they do it in some hanging parachutes and then... the "real" reason we paid what we did to see this flick: the attack.
You know, you gotta tip your hat to the Japanese military when you realize the sheer scope of the attack (hundreds of planes - broken up between high-altitude bombers, fighters and torpedo planes) and the damage they wrought (2,000-plus dead and more than a dozen ships hit in less than 2 hours).
The entire attack - more than 30 minutes long but it seems like 10 minutes - is amazing. A few critics said the fx was worse than those seen on Titanic - I disagree. The aerial combat was breathtaking. The bombing and raking of Americans in the water was done extremely well. I found myself ducking from the bullets spat from the diving Zeros, much like I did during the opening of "Saving Private Ryan." And some of my favorite war footage didn't occur over the skies of Hawaii, but rather over Britain, when British and the American "Eagle Squadron" jumped from lumbering Nazi bombers near the British coast. Great footage - puts anything seen in "Memphis Belle" to shame in a hurry.
OK, there were some cheesy points: two American fighters manage - ala Star Wars - to out-fly, out-gun and out-fx 7 Japanese Zeros, which of course was great to watch but totally bogus in real life. Sorry, when the odds in aerial combat are 3-1, the 1 will lose everytime. But that scene was balanced with Cuba Gooding's shootdown from the deck of a stricken ship of a diving torpedo bomber - great effects.
Once the battle is completed, there is somewhat of a letdown, and it seems too long of a pause from when the bombs finish dropping over Oahu and when Doolittle's bombers drop American bombs on Tokyo. Still, this raid has seldom been touched by Hollywood, and it was refreshing to see.
My favorite scenes from the whole movie were, of course, the ones shown on the previews months ago - tiny snippets of Americana throughout the Hawaiian Islands rudely brought up cold by these menacing - and yet beautiful - Japanese planes. A woman with wet clothes from a clothesline; boy scouts on a tromp through the hills; a baseball game. Beautiful, mesmerizing, and yes, menacing.
My only regret - and something I was anticipated and was disappointed when it didn't occur - is that Bay failed to show snippes of Japanese everyday life in and around Tokyo suddenly ground to a halt as the B-25's roared overhead. There was one scene of several Japanese women looking up and running, as the bombers - getting kissed by ak-ak fire and smoke - can be seen in the corner of the screen at the top of a hill.
Regardless, this is a great summer movie that *will* entertain you. C'mon folks - that's all movies can do. Not teach our kids history. They get school for that. And it's not to tell how things happened back then. The History Channel and our grandfathers are for that. This movie tells a good story. That' what you get for your $8 bucks.
Enjoy it.
The Patriot (2000)
A good summer flick
Boy, what ever happened to the days when a person went to the movie theater to watch and enjoy a movie? People who have been offended by this movie probably shouldn't pay their money to see any type of movie of any kind at all, because if you're that sensative, then you will find faults with ever movie, no matter the genre.
I'm not a big fan of Emmerich but the Patriot was much better than I'd anticipated, especially considering his two previous movies -- Godzilla and ID4. It's a rousing movie made to stir up the emotions during this country's birthday, and it's message is clear -- be proud that you're an American, and look and see just how close we came to being ruled under God, King and Country.
No thanks.
To the people who were horrified at the depiction of this movie, what's the big deal? It's a MOVIE... you know, fiction? If you want accurate history, sit down in front of the the History Channel or TLC. If you want an emotional, patriotic movie, pay your dollars for the Patriot. And how do we know the British didn't do the things we saw on the Silver Screen? I doubt anybody today was alive back then... the British Empire -- like the Romans before it -- was the lone superpower in the world. You don't think they would resort to brutality to keep their lowly subjects in line?!? Give me a break!
Remember guys, America is today's only true superpower... and last I saw, we were the only ones to drop an Atomic bomb on a populated city.
So, please, stop with the mock outrage and generalizations and just go and enjoy a good summer flick!